Replies

As former care-giver to severely disabled/mentally retarded adults, I don't understand why Terri's death needs to be precipitated. Some of the people I cared for were born with their problems, others became disabled due to accident or illness. All were important to me and to the others who took care of them. We worked with these individuals to strengthen atrophied muscles and maintain basic body functions. Some were bedridden. Should they have been denied care simply because they could not think and reason the way a "normal" person can? Because some of them could not feed themselves or dress themselves or otherwise take care of themselves? If they got sick, we didn't encourage them to die by withholding care.

If she COULD feed herself, but needed dialysis due to kidney problems, would Michael be pursuing withdrawing dialysis? If she could feed herself, but needed insulin injections to stay alive (and could not do this for herself) would he pursue withholding insulin? If she was able to feed herself, but required an ostomy (which she could not do for herself) due to digestive failure, what then? If she needed oxygen supplementation for weak lungs, what then? A pacemaker?

Some of the patients I cared for had no families to take care of them because they had outlived their parents or had been abandoned, but I never heard of anyone pursuing their death simply because they were incapable of living independently or having a quality of life I take for granted. Some of them made me sad, but it never occurred to me that they should not be taken care of.

Terri has parents and other people who are willing to take care of her and feed her by whatever means she needs until she dies. Parents of children BORN with similar disabilities may care for them their whole natural lives and do everything possible to keep these individuals healthy and comfortable whether they EVER speak, laugh, walk, or do anything "normal" people do. People are dramatically disabled in accidents every year...brain injuries, spinal cord injuries. Many of them require permanent round-the-clock care ever after. There are people willing to take care of these people, whether they ever speak again or do any of the things they were able to do before they were forever changed. If these people are worthy of such care, I don't understand why this woman should be singled out for death. She is no better and no worse off than many other people in a similar state. Death is not imminent, but she does require special feeding. So did many of the people I worked with.

I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that Terri's needs are fairly low-tech and basic. Fifteen, twenty, forty years...if there are people willing and able to take care of her needs, I see no reason to essentially euthanize her.

I didn't stop feeding my dog when old age made him decrepit and weak. When the time came to ease him out of this life, I didn't do so by starving him to death. If Terri was utterly incapacitated by a stroke tomorrow and was on life-support...if there was then a plug to pull on Terri and facilitate death promptly, to me that's a little different than the method they are suggesting, when death is not imminent. I wouldn't wish euthansia by starvation and dehydration on my dog, I certainly wouldn't wish it on a human being, whether she was capable of understanding what was happening to her or not.

Sometimes I think about those people I used to care for and remember all the ways they changed my life for the better. They might not have had the kind of life I would want for myself or my children, but it was better for me to have been a part of the group who loved and cared for them than to be part of any group who felt they'd be better off gone. There was a reason for them. A reason why they were in the world. A reason for their "being". I don't know what that reason is or was, but caring for them changed ME and blessed ME.

Maybe Terri's life plays a similar role in the bigger picture? Maybe she's not here for "her" anymore, but for the rest of us.

Thank you for your long and very thoughtful (and obviously heartfelt) reply. I certainly sympathize with everything you say and agree with most everything.

I think what your comment brings to this discussion is that it doesn't lend itself to facile answers and certainly not to simple ones. That's why I believe so strongly in private decision-making, not state-imnposed decision-making. I agree with your point about activist judges.

I remember how quickly my wife went downhill and shudder to think of having had to initiate some legal proceeding and persuade some liberal judge (armed with a 'maintain physical life at all costs' statute) in order to stop chemotherapy and let my dear wife die.

I think a lot of people here distrust the husband (perhaps justifiably so) and were upset that Judge Greer didn't displace him. But to now get the Congress to enact some slapdash law to try to overrule Judge Greer is crazy. Imagine literally having to make a 'federal case' out of every decision which could affect live or death.

This is insanity. As your post so movingly proves, this is not about one woman, but about the proper legal procedure which could and would affect hundreds of thousands of people.

My wife and I talked about incapacitation many, many times. Although seldom in the presence of others. We did both write 'durable powers of attorney' but even there the general statements are intended to guide the decision-maker, not generate more litigation.

The husband in Terry's case may be a bad apple, I don't know. I do know that the parents had their (many) day(s) in court and did not persuade Judge Greer that the husband met the criteria for removal under Florida law. I have no reason to believe that Judge Greer did not try to make the best decision he could. Moreover, I have no reason to believe that either lawyer pulled any punches. I suspect that they each put up every bit of evidence they thought would help their case.

So, my view is that the principle of private decision-making of these sensitive decisions is crucial and that any rule which involved the state in every such decision would be disasterous. Thus, I conclude that efforts to change the law by involving the state in every such decision would be a terrible, terrible thing.

I would let Terry go home now.